This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think it needs to be added that one of the major constraints holding the United States (and other similarly situated countries) back from doing this kind of thing was also the presence of a genuine Christian faith and set of values grounding the actions of most military commanders. Our leaders used to have moral frontiers they would not cross, now we do not.
When JFK's generals were proposing a surprise attack on Cuba, RFK slipped him a note saying that they would be no better than the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. There was a genuine shared sense of honor, and a sense of mortal sin, that made certain actions off limits as dishonorable, as endangering one's immortal soul. Tradition stretching back through history to Chivalry, to the Romans who believed that war had to be validly declared with all due ceremony before it could be engaged in honorably. The surprise attack, the assassination, the murder, these were not avoided for mechanical reasons but because they were sins, they harmed one's soul.
Trump simply doesn't share that moral grounding. He has no belief that these are acts that would stain his soul, assuming he believes in a soul. He sees nothing wrong with launching a surprise attack in the middle of negotiations, as long as it achieves the goal. He is a pure utilitarian, there is no means that cannot be justified by sufficiently good ends.
The long term consequences of the Sucker-Punch Doctrine have yet to be seen.
More options
Context Copy link